Upper-level classes and four-year degrees are already available at college campuses. The only barriers to increasing these offerings are interested students and college/university resources. The “solution” doesn’t address either of these issues.

Other “benefits”--continued low tuition and credit transferability--are simply promises not to mess up what is already in place.

Since there is no plan as yet, it is not clear that there will be any financial savings. Of course, budget cuts can always be mandated, but no system change is required for that.

Access to higher education was a major goal of the relatively small college system. It is hard to believe this situation will be improved by making access another goal of a much larger system.

I also note that the “solution” was produced without the input of students, faculty or administrators from the colleges or the universities and without any input from affected local authorities.

This restructure probably benefits someone, but it is certainly not clear who.